[Rhodes22-list] Political reply to Ben C. and David B

[Tootle]

Ben,

Your analysis of my comments is O.K.  Part of the issue is that I think what
I want to say much faster than I type.  Even when I proof read what I say, I
often read what I say as what I was thinking and miss needed corrections and
whole phrases.

Secondly, the way you and I use certain terms is not the same.  You apply
specific meanings with historical perspective and I apply more general
meanings than are being used in current circulation on the street.  The
terms used in the 1930's and 1950's have evolved to different usage in
current literature and discussion.  

Often, those changed meanings have been intentional by the authors or
speakers to obscure their intent.  Often the terms used today are just
evolutionary usage of a term.  I will have to try to keep to historical
generic terms rather that the pointed ones used elsewhere on the street to
describe concepts.  

David said, "Ed, et al., a question for you.  What do you call it today when
we have a progressive tax rate?  Are we living in a Socialist system
already, by your definition?”  The answer is yes. I say yes because of the
intent, see below. 

David said, "I do not view a marginal shift in the progressive tax rates as
Socialist…"  But it is.  It uses the power of government to collect money (a
form of property) to give to others, again see intent of use below.  

Are there legitimate reasons to have a progressive tax or taxes at all?  Of
course, the Constitution says, "provide for the common defense, promote
general welfare,” and it further states that "Congress shall have power:  To
lay and collect taxes..."  It originally set method and limits, but that was
changed thru amendments and court interpretations of that amendment.

A contemporary definition of socialism is “a theory of social organization
based on government ownership, management, and control of the means of
production and the distribution of exchange."  I suggest aspects of that
definition are not accurate in today’s world. The definition was written by
a contemporary media person.  As such it obscures or fails to recognize
other aspects of the term such as economic, political and common usage.  

Socialism is a term developed from Marx, Engels and others writings on
‘political economy’.  A contemporary definition is, “The form of government
was one where there was no separation between civil society and the state
and which directly corresponded to the 'essence of socialized man."  And the
definition continues, “Work is shared equally throughout the nation
according to ability, and everyone has equal rights, standard of living and
class.”

The equalizing of ‘standard of living and class’ thru means of taxation and
government programs is where the use of the term ‘socialist policies’ is
being derived from in the current political debate.  The above definitions
are on the street being used to interchangeably to describe Socialist,
Progressives, M’ist, C’ist and other fallows.  

Current journalist, writers and commentators have comingled the terms.  That
is the way it is on the street.  The listeners or readers have to apply
current generic definitions to understand what is said.  

The intent of the taxation and distribution today has become to ‘equally
share the standard of living”, without regard to contribution, risk, etc. 
This is called Socialism, etc., on the street in 2008.

Ed K
Greenville, SC, USA










-- 
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Political-reply-to-Ben-C.-and-David-B-tp20129731p20129731.html
Sent from the Rhodes 22 mailing list archive at Nabble.com.